• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Copyright
 Interpretation of soluble salts...
 Interpretation of soluble salts...
 Interpretation of the saturated...
 Interpretation of soluble salts...
 Interpretation of soil test utilizing...
 Avoiding high salt problems
 Reference






Group Title: Mimeo report - Bradenton Agricultural Research & Education Center - C-1972-4
Title: The interpretation of soluble salt tests and soil analysis by different procedures
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00067675/00001
 Material Information
Title: The interpretation of soluble salt tests and soil analysis by different procedures
Series Title: Bradenton AREC mimeo report
Physical Description: 9 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Waters, W. E ( Will E )
Agricultural Research & Education Center (Bradenton, Fla.)
Publisher: Agricultural Research & Education Center
Place of Publication: Bradenton Fla
Publication Date: 1972
 Subjects
Subject: Soil management -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Soils, Salts in -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaf 9).
Statement of Responsibility: Will E. Waters ... et al..
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "April, 1972."
Funding: Florida Historical Agriculture and Rural Life
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00067675
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Marston Science Library, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida
Holding Location: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and the Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station; Institute for Food and Agricultural Services (IFAS), University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: oclc - 71844130

Table of Contents
    Copyright
        Copyright
    Interpretation of soluble salts for 1:2 dry weight procedure
        Page 1
    Interpretation of soluble salts for 1:2 dry volume procedure
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Interpretation of the saturated paste procedure for soluble salts and specific nutrients
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Interpretation of soluble salts in irrigation water
        Page 7
    Interpretation of soil test utilizing ammonium acetate pH 4.8 extracting solution
        Page 7
    Avoiding high salt problems
        Page 8
    Reference
        Page 9
Full Text





HISTORIC NOTE


The publications in this collection do
not reflect current scientific knowledge
or recommendations. These texts
represent the historic publishing
record of the Institute for Food and
Agricultural Sciences and should be
used only to trace the historic work of
the Institute and its staff. Current IFAS
research may be found on the
Electronic Data Information Source
(EDIS)

site maintained by the Florida
Cooperative Extension Service.






Copyright 2005, Board of Trustees, University
of Florida












AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & EDUCATION CI!'TCr
Bradenton, Florida

Bradenton AREC Mimeo Report GC-1972-4 April, 1972

The Interpretation of Soluble Salt Tests and Soil Analysis by
Different Procedures

Will E. Waters1, James NeSmith2, C. M. Geraldson1 and S. S. Woltz1


Controlling and accurately measuring the soluble salts in the soil solution
is a continuous problem for most flower growers, especially where crops are
grown in predominately sandy soils. Salts accumulate in tha soil primarily from
applied fertilizer and salty irrigation water, and small amounts are contributed
by decaying organic matter. Soil soluble salts are composed predominantly of
ammonium, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bicarbonate, chloride, nitrate,
and sulfate ions.

When soluble salt levels become too high, plant roots are damaged (burned),
which reduces their ability to absorb water and nutrients. When salt concentra-
tion of the soil solution exceeds concentration inside plant roots, water moves
out of the roots into the soil, causing partial or complete dehydration and
death. Other symptoms include stunting, excessive wilting, marginal leaf burn,
yellowing of new growth, and small flowers. In mild cases reduction in growth
may occur without other visible symptoms.

Soil samples are normally analyzed for soluble salts by any of three
different procedures in Florida; therefore, the producer and his advisor must
recognize these different testing procedures and understand how to interpret
the salt analysis. Extreme variations occur in parts per million soluble salts
obtained on the same sample by the three testing procedures. These three salt
procedures are (a) 1:2 soil to water dry weight procedure, (b) 1:2 soil to water
volume procedure, and (c) the saturated paste procedure.

The objective of this report is to summarize existing knowledge and present
rough guidelines on how to interpret salt analyses and soil tests from different
procedures.

Interpretation of soluble salts for 1:2 dry weight procedure

In the 1:2 dry weight procedure results are reported as ppm salts by weight
of the air dry soil, which makes bulk density of media an important factor in
interpretation. With the light weight media, much larger volumes are required
to equal a given weight than with the heavier media, yet both are mixed in the




iHorticulturist, Soils Chemist and Plant Physiologist, respectively, AREC,
Bradenton.
2Associate Professor of Soils, IFAS, Extension Service, Dept. of Soils, Univ.
of Florida, Gainesville.











same volume of water. Therefore, in establishing high and low salinity values
as shown in Table 1 for light weight media by the dry weight method, values other
than those recommended for sandy field soils must be used. Also, contrary to
sandy field soils, light weight media frequently contain moderate quantities of
moisture after air drying which skews results of dry weight procedure.

The mixture of one part soil by weight and two parts water are read on a
Solu-Bridge at 250 C. The Solu-Bridge is calibrated to read specific conductance
of the solution from 10 to 1,000 mhos x 10-5 or 0.1 to 10 mhos x 10-3 for the
newer models.

The ppm salts for the dry-weight procedure are calculated by EC x 700 x 2
where EC equals electrical conductivity in mmhos/cm3 or "solu-bridge reading" in
mhos x 10-3, 700 represents the average factor for converting conductivity read-
ings to ppm salts, and 2 the water weight dilution factor.
EXAMPLE Solu-Bridge reading was 0.48
.48 x 700 x 2 = 672 ppm salt
For Solu-Bridge designed to read in mhos x 10-5 use a factor of 7 instead of 7C0.
For light weight mixes with high water holding capacity it may be necessary to
use a 1:4 mixture of soil to water by weight. In which case a water dilution
factor of 4 should be used instead of 2.

Table 1. Interpretation of soluble salt readings (ppm)
of 1:2 mixture of dry soil to water by weight*
for ornamental plants.


ppm salts for three media**
Sandy Sand:Peat Peat or light
soil (1:1 ratio) wt. mixes

Low 400 1,000 2,000
Medium 800 3,000 5,000
High 1,200 5,000 8,000
Very high 1,600 6,500 10,000
Excessive 1,600+ 6,500+ 10,000+


*This method of reporting soluble salts is used by
Florida Agricultural Extension Service Laboratory and
the Division of Plant Industry for Gainesville.
**Remember these readings are very rough guides only.


Interpretation of soluble salts for 1:2 volume procedure

In this procedure soluble salts are easily estimated by mixing one part air
dry soil to two parts water and read on the Solu-Bridge at 250 C. The results
are reported as ppm salts in a volume of water equivalent to the volume of soil
sample. In the 1:2 volume procedure the same formula as for the dry weight
method (EC x 700 x 2) is used for calculations where the EC and 700 representation
are the same as for dry weight procedure and 2 represents water-volume dilution
factor. Here again, where it is necessary to use 4 volumes of water for peat
and light weight soil mixes, a water dilution factor of 4 must be used in the
calculations.








-3-


The 1:2 soil to water volume method is the procedure most commonly used
by growers with their own Solu-Bridges. Tith this method variations in salinity
readings of media with different bulk densities at a given fertilization rate
are much less than with the 1:2 dry weight procedure. The volume measure offers
partial compensation for the great variation in bulk density. However, as with
the dry weight method, excessive soil moisture in the sample at the time of
analysis, especially with light weight media, will reduce the salinity readings;
therefore the initial soil sample should be air dried.

Table 2. Interpretation of soluble salt readings (ppm) for 1:2 air dry soil to
water mixture by volume

Solu-Bridge
reading
mhos x 10-5" ppm Salt
Media on 1:2 volume salt** rating Remarks
Sandy soils Below 25 0-325
1:1 peat:sand Below 33 0-460 Low Ueed fertilizer
Peat or light
wt. mixes Below 50 0-700
Sandy soils 25 to 50 350-700
1:1 peat:sand 33 to 66 460-925 Low to Satisfactory
Peat or light medium for growth in
wt. mixes 50 to 100 700-1400 upper range
Sandy soils 50 to 100 700-1400 Desirable salt
1:1 peat:sand 66 to 130 925-1820 Medium to range no fert.
Peat or light high needed, but
wt. mixes 100 to 175 1400-2450 light applica-
tions can be
made.
Sandy soils 100 to 150 1400-2100 Do not fert. or
1:1 peat:sand 130 to 200 1820-2800 High to allow soil to be-
Peat or light very high come dry. Leach
wt. mixes 175 to 275 2450-3850 media if read-
ings are near
top of these
ranges

*These readings are based on medium salt tolerant plants such as chrysanthemums
and gladiolus. For salt sensitive plants these scales should be decreased by
approximately 25%.
**EC (Solu-Bridge reading in mhos x 10-5) x 7 x 2 = ppm salt.







-4-


Interpretation of the saturated paste procedure for soluble
salts and sDecific nutrients

The saturated paste extract procedure of testing salinity was initially
developed by the U.S. Salinity Laboratory in Riverside, California (10) for
saline and alkali soils and later was expanded by C. M. Geraldson at Agricultural
Research and Education Center, Bradenton, Florida (3,4) to evaluate not only
intensity (total salts) but also the balance of the various ions in the salt
extract, hence, the intensity and balance or I & B concept of soil testing
presently in use in Florida.

With this procedure sufficient water is added to any type of soil media to
bring the soil sampling to a glistening saturated paste and then the moisture
extracted from the soil under slight vacuum.

In the saturated paste procedure results are reported in Florida as ppm
salts in the soil solution at maximum soil moisture holding capacity after
drainage. These readings are calculated by EC~x 700 x moisture factor (HF),
where ECerepresents electrical conductivity in mmhos/cm3 (Solu-Bridge reading)
of the saturation extract, 700 represents standard conversion factor and MF
represents ratio of moisture percentage at saturation (by dry weight) to moisture
holding capacity percentage (by dry weight). The moisture factor changes with
soil or media composition as well as with the pot size for container grown
ornamentals. The moisture factor for any soil or media can be computed by:

I.F. = % soil moisture on weight basis at saturation
% soil moisture on weight basis at field moisture capacity

For field soils and ground beds the moisture factors normally used are 2.0
for sandy soils, 1.2 for organic soils and 1.5 for 1/2 sand to 1/2 peat mixtures
(4).

In recent years it has been demonstrated that the moisture holding capacity
of soils in containers is affected not only by the soil mixture but also by the
container size and height (6,7,8,9,11). Moisture retention properties of media
in containers are affected by a media-container interface phenomenon which acts
as a barrier to free drainage and media water retention is also a function of
container depth (11,13).

Since these phenomenon affect the moisture factors we have determined the
moisture factors for several soil media in different containers (Table 3) for use
when determining soluble salts by the saturated paste technique for container
grown crops (11).










Table 3. Factors to convert electrical conductivity of saturated paste extract


(ECe) to ppm soluble salts
midia mixtures


at field moisture capacity for several soil


Factors for various size plastic pots
2 1/4" sq. pot 5' round pot 7" round pot
Iedia Moisture Moisture Ioisture
Mixtures Factor(MF) MF x 7 Factor HF x 7 Factor MF x 7
Muck 1.1 7.7 1.3 9.1 1.8 12.6
Europe n or
native peat 1.14 8.0 1.37 9.6 1.8 12.6
Wood
shavings 1.39 9.7 1.43 10.0 2.1 14.7
Shavings and
peat cc-b. 1.2 8.4 1.43 10.0 1.7 11.9
Perlite end
peat (not over 1.3 9.1 1.43 10.0 1.8 12.6
66Z of either)
Shavings, p'at
and pnrlitr 1.3 9.1 1.43 10.0 1.9 13.3
mix tre
Sand* peat
1:1 1.3 9.1 1.43 10.0 1.8 12.6
Sand:peat:
perlite at 1.2 8.4 1.43 10.0 1.7 11.9
1:1:1 volure
Sandrpeatz
shaving", ,a 1.3 9.1 1.43 10.0 1.7 11.9
1:1:1 vol:-e
Perlite and
shavings 1.5 10.5 1.65 11.5 2.4 16.8
1:1 volume
Builders
sand alonCe 1.6 11.2 1.8 12.6 2.2 15.4
Sand.shavings:
perlita at 1.5 10.5 2.2 15.4 2.4 16.8
1: 1! volume

*Builders sand was used in these media.


Since the media sample is brought to a saturated paste prior to salt
determination, initial soil moisture, sample volume, bulk density, water holding
capacity, or media composition are not critical factors in accuracy of determi-
nations (1,2,3,4,5,11). Our conclusions are that in dealing with media with wide
ranas of bulk density and water holding capacity, the saturated paste technique
is superior and where it is not practicable the air dry volume based technique
appear, superior from a convenience viewpoint to the dry weight method. However,
for saiiy evils, the 1:2 dry weight method has advantages over the volume
technique bru both are inferior to the saturated paste procedure.

Trprcrar-y Iow, rcdium, and high levels of soluble salts (ppm) as determined












by saturated paste technique for ornamentals are given in Table 4. It should be
emphasized that these are only first approximations and will be changed as
information is gained.

Table 4. Interpretation of low, medium, and high soluble salt
levels for ornamental crops as determined by saturated
paste technique.

Crop
Response Low Optimum High
Salt sensitive
crops 900 1800 2700
Range up to 1400 1400 2300 2300 3000
Medium salt
tolerant crops 1500 3000 4500
Range up to 2200 2200 3800 3900 5200
High salt
tolerant crops 3500 4500 5500
Range up to 4000 4000 5000 5000 6000

These figures refer to ppm total soluble salts in the soil solu-
tion at field moisture capacity.


Interpretation of the intensity and balance of specific ions in
the saturation extract

Rough guide lines (Table 5) have been established for use on gladiolus and
chrysanthemum plantings and are subject to change as additional information is
developed.


Table 5.


Suggested ionic concentrations expressed as % of the
total soluble salts from the saturated paste extract
procedure


Desirable range
(% of total salts)
10 15
3- 6
8 12
0-5
5 10
1-3
0.5 1.5
1-5


Remarks
Below 10% low
Below 2% low
Below 5% low
Above 10% high
Above 15% excessive
Should be less than N03
Levels not firmly established
Above 10% high


Elements*
Ca
1Hg
K
Na
NO3
N114
P
Cl


*Iicro elements usually run 1-2 ppm each in the extract and 4 ppm
or above for any given micro element should be considered excessive.


---


---











Interpretation of soluble salts in irrigation water


Quality of irrigation water is very important in plant production because of
undesirable effects of total soluble salts as well as certain specific chemicals
found in some waters. When a new well or growing operation is being planned, a
complete water analysis should be made.

Concentration of soluble salts in Florida well waters ranges from very few
to several thousand parts per million (ppm) (12). Generally wells can be
classified as low, medium and high according to salt content. Wells containing
less than 700 ppm total soluble salts are considered in the low class and usually
do not cause trouble (Table 6). Wells containing from 700 to 1500 ppm salt are
in the medium salt range and may cause trouble, especially during dry seasons or
where frequent but light overhead irrigation is practiced. Wells containing over
2,000 ppm salt should be avoided as far as possible for ornamental plant
production.


In order to convert Solu-Bridge Model RD-15 reading on
irrigation water, multiply the reading of the water in mhos
will approximate the ppm total soluble salts in the water.


well water or other
x 10-5 by 7. This


EXAMPLE: Solu-Bridge reading was 48
48 x 7 = 336 ppm total soluble salts in the water
(If the Solu-Bridge reads in mhos x 10-3 then
multiply the 0.48 by 700 instead of 7.)


Table 6. Classes of irrigation water and permissible limits of constituents

Electrical Total dis-
conductance solved solids Sodium
E.C. x 10-5 (salts) percent of Boron
Class of water at 250 C ppm total solids ppm
1. Excellent less than 25 175 20 .33
2. Good 25-75 175-525 20-40 .33-.67
3. Permissible 75-200 525-1400 40-60 .67-1.00
4. Doubtful 200-300 1400-2100 60-80 1.00-1.25
5. Unsuitable more than 300 2100 80 1.25


Source: L.V. Wilcox. 1948. The Quality of Water for Irrigation
Tech. Bull. 962:p. 27, adapted for Florida conditions by
Conover (12).


Use. USDA
Waters and


Interpretation of soil test utilizing ammonium acetate pH 4.8
extracting solution

This is the standard soil test procedure utilized by the Extension Service
Soil Testing Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida and the
results are reported as pounds per acre of the oxides. A guide to interpreting
these tests for two soil or media types is listed in Table 7 below.

In the production of commercial flower crops in Florida, a soil analysis











Interpretation of soluble salts in irrigation water


Quality of irrigation water is very important in plant production because of
undesirable effects of total soluble salts as well as certain specific chemicals
found in some waters. When a new well or growing operation is being planned, a
complete water analysis should be made.

Concentration of soluble salts in Florida well waters ranges from very few
to several thousand parts per million (ppm) (12). Generally wells can be
classified as low, medium and high according to salt content. Wells containing
less than 700 ppm total soluble salts are considered in the low class and usually
do not cause trouble (Table 6). Wells containing from 700 to 1500 ppm salt are
in the medium salt range and may cause trouble, especially during dry seasons or
where frequent but light overhead irrigation is practiced. Wells containing over
2,000 ppm salt should be avoided as far as possible for ornamental plant
production.


In order to convert Solu-Bridge Model RD-15 reading on
irrigation water, multiply the reading of the water in mhos
will approximate the ppm total soluble salts in the water.


well water or other
x 10-5 by 7. This


EXAMPLE: Solu-Bridge reading was 48
48 x 7 = 336 ppm total soluble salts in the water
(If the Solu-Bridge reads in mhos x 10-3 then
multiply the 0.48 by 700 instead of 7.)


Table 6. Classes of irrigation water and permissible limits of constituents

Electrical Total dis-
conductance solved solids Sodium
E.C. x 10-5 (salts) percent of Boron
Class of water at 250 C ppm total solids ppm
1. Excellent less than 25 175 20 .33
2. Good 25-75 175-525 20-40 .33-.67
3. Permissible 75-200 525-1400 40-60 .67-1.00
4. Doubtful 200-300 1400-2100 60-80 1.00-1.25
5. Unsuitable more than 300 2100 80 1.25


Source: L.V. Wilcox. 1948. The Quality of Water for Irrigation
Tech. Bull. 962:p. 27, adapted for Florida conditions by
Conover (12).


Use. USDA
Waters and


Interpretation of soil test utilizing ammonium acetate pH 4.8
extracting solution

This is the standard soil test procedure utilized by the Extension Service
Soil Testing Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida and the
results are reported as pounds per acre of the oxides. A guide to interpreting
these tests for two soil or media types is listed in Table 7 below.

In the production of commercial flower crops in Florida, a soil analysis











by the ammonium acetate method has the most application during the land prepara-
tion or media formulation process. The use of this method as a guide to
fertilizing during the crop cycle has serious limitations.

Table 7. Suggested pli and nutrient levels as determined
by NH40ac 4.8 method for ornamentals on two
media types


Sandy soils or sandy type media (lbs/acre)
Level pH CaO MgO P205 K20

High 7.0 1700 300+ 185 380
Medium 5.8 1100 200 95 240
Low 5.0 500 150 40 120

Organic or light weight type media(lbs/acre)
7.0 2600 400 200 400
5.8 1600 300 100 300
5.0 750 200 50 200


Source: Dr. James NeSmith, Extension Service Soil Testing
Laboratory, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida


Avoiding High Salt Problems

In addition to reducing water uptake as previously mentioned, salts from
irrigation water may produce nutritional imbalances and toxicities, and may
adversely affect the physical condition of soils (14). Sodium tends to make
soils "run together", to be wet, non-aggregating and subject to poor drainage
and aeration. Light, sandy soils are not so much affected. Sodium also inter-
feres with the uptake of other positively charged ions that are nutritionally
important. These include potassium, magnesium and especially calcium. Excess
sodium may induce calcium deficiency or poor quality of plant products due to low
calcium availability. Potential toxic elements in irrigation water include boron,
fluoride, lithium, and bicarbonate. In the case of boron, there seems to be a
need to learn how to fertilize properly according to the amounts of boron present
in the irrigation water. Analyses of water and leaf samples will aid in clarify-
ing this situation.

Large amounts of the negatively charged ion, bicarbonate, are undesirable.
If bicarbonate is present much in excess of the chloride plus sulfate content,
the bicarbonate can result in the precipitation of calcium and magnesium and in
the production of sodium-saturated soils that have poor physical condition. The
bicarbonate ion also increases the incidence of iron deficiency.

To reduce or eliminate the effects of high soluble salts the following
procedures are helpful:
1. Avoid excess use of chloride, sodium, and sulfate in fertilizer to reduce
the salt-input of unnecessary elements.
2. Test irrigation water and soils regularly.
3. Select sources of water of the best quality available.










4. Provide good drainage to remove salts.
5. Double-row beds that are not thrown up too high are less subject to salt
damage for seeded crops. Salts move to the highest place in the bed or to the
top center of a double-row bed. Sloped beds may sometimes be used with seeding
on the downward side.
6. Be careful to avoid letting very light soils dry out since a 50% loss of
available soil moisture approximately doubles the salt concentration.
7. When possible, leach salts out of soil even with slightly salty water.
With seep irrigation one may raise the water level and then drain to remove
dissolved salts. Overhead irrigation is the ideal way to remove salts by leach-
ing. The saltier the water is, the more leaching is required.
8. Salts accumulate in hardpan sub-soil pockets or depressions in the hard-
pan profile. These small areas that will damage a planting should be corrected
by breaking the hardpan somehow at the center of the affected area and leaching
out the salts. Surprisingly, these areas will persist with heavy rains or heavy
irrigation, unless the hardpan is broken.

A physiological character of root growth that has not been discussed is the
failure of roots to grow into a zone of high soluble salts because of water
limitations to the root. If fertilizer is placed too close to roots, they will
probably be burned, but roots will not grow into excessively salty soil because
of the water deficit. If soluble salts build up too high in soil, the plants
will make little growth and leaves may be burned.

SELECTED REFERENCES

1. Bunt, A. C. 1961. Some physical properties of pot-plant composts and their
effect on plant growth. Plant and Soil 13(4):322-332.
2. Bunt, A.C. and P. Adams. 1966. Some critical comparisons of peat-sand and
loam-based composts, with special reference to the interpretation of physical
and chemical analyses. Plant and Soil 24(2):213-221.
3. Geraldson, C.M. 1957. Soil soluble-salts Determination of and association
with plant growth. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 70:121-126.
4. Geraldson, C.I. 1967. Evaluation of the nutrient intensity and balance
system of soil testing. Soil and Crop Sci. Goc. of Fla. 27:59-67.
5. Hammond, L.C. 1966. Soil-water-salinity-plant relationships. Soil and Crop
Sci. Soc. of Fla. 26:257-264.
6. Hendrickson, A.H. and F.J. Veihmeyer. 1941. moisture distribution in soil
in containers. Plant Physiol. 16:821-826.
7. Joiner, J.N. and C.A. Conover. 1965. Characteristics affecting desirability
of various media components for production of container-grown plants.
Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. of Fla. 25:320-328.
8. Luthin, J.N. and R. D. Miller. 1953. Pressure distribution in soil columns
draining into the atmosphere. Soil Sci. Soc. Proc. 18:329-333.
9. Matkin, O.A., J.E. Rodenbaugh and Warren Lewis. 1969. Research results on
soil amendments. American Nurseryman 130(12):8, 48-54.
10. Richards, L.A. "Editor". 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkali soils, USDA Agricultural Handbook 60.
11. Waters, T.E., Un. Llewellyn and James NeSmith. 1970. The chemical physical
and salinity characteristics of twenty-seven soil media. Proc.Fla.State
Ilort.Soc. 83:482-488.
12. Waters, W.E. and C.A. Conover. 1969. Chrysanthemum production in Florida.
Univ. of Fla. Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 730.
13. White, J.W. and J. TT. Hastarlerz. 1966. Soil moisture as related to "Con-
tainer Capacity". Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 89:758-765.
14. Woltz, S.S. 1970. Physiological effects of high soluble salts on plant
growth. Agri. Chemicals West 12:13.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs